Tag Archives: Health

Acid Test For Excellence in Crisis Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

On April 12, 2020 – in the morning of the day 19 of the national lockdown, India’s total number of Coronavirus positive cases reached 8,504 with 289 deaths. The country’s trajectory is reportedly  steeper than most Asian peers, such as Singapore, Japan, and Indonesia. Incidences of new infections and deaths are also rising faster. The report also highlighted a possible link between number of tests conducted and the number of confirmed cases across the States. The aggregated impact of Covid19 outbreak has created an unprecedented health, social and economic calamity, changing everybody’s life – now and beyond.

However, going by Prime Minister Modi’s announcement on March 24, 2020, the national lockdown to contain the pandemic should continue till April 14, 2020. But, the above scenario is creating a huge dilemma within almost all Coronavirus crisis management leadership in the States, with the final decision resting upon the Prime Minister of India. Meanwhile, on April 09, 2020, Odisha government decided to extend the lockdown until April 30, followed by Punjab, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Telengana on April 11, 2020. However, all will get to know India’s decision in this regard for the rest of India, as you read this piece today.

The top leaders of Asia, Europe and American continents are handling the grave situation differently, with a varying degree of success, so far. Everybody is watching different world leaders in action – each trying hard to gain control over the unprecedented crisis, making it an acid test for excellence in Crisis Leadership.

Three different types of needs for the country:

As I see, three specific types of needs of three specific classes of people in the social milieu, are emerging in India:

  • Only need is to save life from the disease, with not much problem in procuring other essential requirements – having enough wherewithal to pull through the critical period, better than most others.
  • Strong need exists to save life, but facing tough challenges in arranging for essential needs for daily living.
  • Need to save life, but feel desperate for the means of livelihood – to protect family and defendants from hunger, in a seemingly uncertain future.

In the current situation, while trying to contain the spread of pandemic effectively, the sufferings of especially, the second and third group, as stated above, also need to be addressed, ‘and this is much aided by a participatory democracy.’

An acid test for crisis leadership at the top:

The situation isn’t just a war against Covid19, but much beyond that. The Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen at Harvard University  explained the situation so well in an article, published on April 08, 2020. He lucidly illustrated, that the needs of people in a natural calamity, such as Coronavirus caused a pandemic, are different from a conventional war – against an enemy country. Desirable leadership qualities are also significantly different.

As Professor Sen wrote, while managing a crisis situation during a conventional war, ‘a leader can use top-down power to order everyone to do what the leader wants – with no need for consultation.’ But, managing a crisis during a natural calamity, a leader should demonstrate skills for a ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion.’ Listening to public discussion makes the top leadership understand what needs to be done by the policy makers.

Another paper, titled “Steering Through the Storm,” published in the ‘People + Strategy’, also reiterated the same with different words. It emphasized, “during a crisis, like natural calamity, leaders should engage actively with their constituents whenever possible, distinguishing critical issues from less pressing needs, communicating risks, and maintaining readiness. Throughout the crisis, leaders should remain accessible and open to new sources of information, and take care of their own needs when necessary and appropriate.”

How different countries are demonstrating crisis leadership:

Like other countries, crisis leadership is now clearly visible even in India – right from 1 day ‘people’s curfew’, to the announcement of 21-day national lockdown for Covid19 outbreak. An interesting article, published in Forbes on March 10, 2020, deliberated on what China, Italy and the United States teach us about crisis leadership. These examples give a sense of how different countries, facing similar but country-specific problems with Covid19, reacted with remarkable ‘different approaches and results.’ I am paraphrasing below some recent illustrations on crisis leadership, as captured in the above paper:

China: China was the first country to face this calamity beginning in Wuhan of the Hubei province. With command and control leadership and decisive action China was able to immediately to garner and consolidate all its resources for an aggressive response. The World Health Organization called it as, “perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history.” This includes closing down manufacturing sectors, sharing information widely, executing mass testing and quarantining millions of people. The Chinese government made the decision to absorb a significant economic cost to contain COVID-19 rather than potentially lose control and the result was effective - the number of new cases has steadily decreased in weeks’ time.

However, the downside of this type of leadership is the possible erosion of trust in the system. As the Atlantic documented, local Chinese officials reported the Covid19 outbreak to the federal government weeks after it began. They also understated the extent of the disease spread, until whistle-blowers stepped forward – and were subsequently punished. This delay probably cost China valuable time in containing the initial outbreak.

This demonstrates, under a command and control ‘crisis leadership’, when people are afraid to tell the truth and discouraged from speaking up, critical information may not reach leadership, until the problem intensifies, the paper added. That said, whether the COVID19 outbreak may have been contained earlier under different leadership conditions, cannot be concluded for sure, at least, in this case. However, official data release now shows more than doubling of new Coronavirus cases to 99 in Mainland China, on April 11, 2020. Moreover, newly reported asymptomatic Coronavirus cases also nearly doubled to 63 on the same day. Hence, the fire has still not been doused. The crisis lingers.

Italy: The catastrophic impact of Covid19 in Italy, helps identify some avoidable areas in ‘crisis leadership’. With rapidly changing and inconsistent messaging, the leaders possibly created panic and distrust among people of all kinds. The top leadership seems to have underestimated the potential spread of the virus, and was not acting in coordination with various groups and stakeholders to contain it, initially.

It happened, despite Italy is a democratic country, unlike China. But, the country, apparently, did not comply with the robust and critical ‘crisis leadership’ norm of fact-based ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion’, as discussed above. This reconfirms that ‘crisis leadership’ must be very careful in saying something they will end up contradicting later, while handling, especially a social calamity, like Covid19 outbreak.

The United States: With the fire of Covid19 outbreak spreading fast in the United States, one finds again, some basics of crisis management norms were missing in the top leadership of the oldest and a robust democracy of the world. Instead, President Trump demonstrated ‘a tendency to rely heavily on his inner circle rather than subject matter experts and to state opinions as facts.’ The President also contradicted experts on his own task force attempting to educate the public, most notably by consistently overstating the scientifically acknowledged timeline to create a vaccine and the preventive medicine combo. He also questioned the reported fatality rate of the virus.

This type of ‘crisis leadership’ is likely to fail in inspiring trust and confidence with the masses, the article concluded. This is evidenced by the current status of the country. The lethal firepower of Covid19 is still hitting the United States very hard, against all its might to fight the invisible enemy garnering all its resources and possibly taking more lives than what it lost, as on date, while fighting all its wars. As on April 11, 2020, the death toll from Coronavirus in the United States eclipsed Italy’s for the highest in the world, surpassing 20,000 marks.

Now let me focus on India, with my own assessment about the ‘crisis leadership’ while responding to this crisis, of course, initially.

India:

To get a perspective of Covid19 spread in South Asia on a relative yardstick, let’s look at the following Government released figures, as quoted in the Reuters report on April 08, 2020:

Country Ind Pak Afghan Sri Lanka Bangladesh Maldives Nepal Bhutan
Cases 5274 4072 444 189 218 19 9 5
Death 149 58 14 7 20 0 0 0

On April 11, 2020, the World Bank estimated, the ‘worst economic slump in South Asia in 40 years.’ Further, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other three smaller nations, with 1.8 billion people and thickly populated cities, although have so far reported relatively few Coronavirus cases, could be the next hotspots for Covid19.

With this, let us look at the Covid19 narrative being unfolded in India, so far. In a lighter vein, following the interesting events with ‘sound’ and ‘light’, the ‘camera’ of time has indeed captured a commendable display of high quality ‘crisis leadership’ in India. Especially, under the given circumstances prevailing at that juncture. The leadership approach fits so well into one of the most critical requirements of crisis management – ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion.’

Even, some seemingly pointless events for some, at the end of the day, did raise morale of many in the fight against Covid19 outbreak, besides their level of participation and involvement in this crisis. Whether or not it is purely due to the personal charisma of the Prime Minister and his huge followings, also doesn’t matter much, as the point is, what really happened, instead of why it happened.

Besides, right from the declaration of ‘Peoples Curfew’ of March 22, 2020 to 21-day national lockdown, the Prime Minister has involved the State Chief Ministers, but also the leaders of opposition parties. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is also visible in the forefront. The net result is the support that the Prime Minster is getting from all, despite hardship – an epitome of ‘crisis leadership,’ as on date.

Thus, the beginning has been laudable, especially when India had no option but to enforce a lockdown, in one form or the other, without having enough testing kits, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare manpower and required health care infrastructure for quarantine or isolation of people. Let me explain this point with a very recent example.

According to a recent report, Covid19 test guidelines presumed that most patients in India acquired the virus from their travels abroad, or from someone who travelled abroad. Accordingly, with a limited number of kits, tests were conducted to zero in on these patients, isolating and quarantining them, to curb the spread of the virus. very focused with lesser requirements of the testing kits.

However, the data compiled by ICMR from random Coronavirus tests on patients with severe respiratory diseases, indicate that 38 percent of Covid19 patients with no travel or contact history have contracted the virus. On April 10, 2020, the Government said that the testing has now been increased to 16000 from earlier 5000-6000 people per day. This raises the vital question: has Covid19 outbreak in India has progressed or progressing from stage 2 to stage 3 of the outbreak, or has the community spread of the disease begun, the last and final stage being stage 4 – the scary virtually uncontrolled Coronavirus outbreak? Alarmingly, as has been widely reported, even on April 12, 2020: ‘Coronavirus in India: Several targets missed, still no sign of rapid testing kits.’ Currently, ‘India ranks extremely low in the Coronavirus-hit countries list based on the number of tests done per million population.’

Thus, the declaration of 21-day national lockdown on March 24, 2020, at the early stage of the Coronavirus outbreak in India was an unprecedented decision. Besides, containing the rapid disease spread, it gave India a small time-space to prepare itself – with more testing kits, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare manpower and adequate number of high-quality – isolation, quarantine and treatment facilities, equipped the disease specific requirements, such as, ventilators.

No matter what, the decision for a 21-day nationwide complete lockdown, giving priority to life over livelihood was a tough call to take for any leader. It indeed was a part of the critical test for excellence in ‘crisis leadership,’ at that point of time.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, as the saying goes ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating,’ the acid test for excellence in ‘crisis leadership’, obviously, will be based on the quality of outcomes and the time it will take. This will include multiple key factors, such as, the speed of health, social and economic turnaround of a country, which is sustainable. Nevertheless, the crisis is far from being over – anywhere in the world, just yet, and the jury is still out.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

India’s Preparedness Against Biological Threats

Posted on by
Reply

Recent Coronavirus outbreak poses a ‘very grave threat to the rest of the world’ – the head of the World Health Organization (WHO), reportedly said on February 11, 2020. Earlier, on January 28, 2020, it had changed the viruses’ risk-status from ‘moderate’ to ‘high’. As it creates a havoc in China, Coronavirus has recorded a limited spread in India, besides France, Canada, US, Japan, Thailand, Sri Lanka. This article will explore how prepared is India to tackle any similar biological threat to protect its citizens from a possible health catastrophe.

Let me begin by assessing pros and cons of the current initiatives of the Indian Government, both at the Center, as well as, in the States, in this regard.

The pros and cons:

Some of the ‘pros’, that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare promptly initiated are as follows:

  • Updated Travel advisory for travelers visiting China. 
  • Discharge policy for suspected or confirmed novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) cases.
  • Guidelines on Clinical management of Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (SARI) in suspect/confirmed 2019-nCoV cases.
  • Guidance on surveillance for human infection with 2019-nCoV.
  • Guidelines for ‘Infection Prevention and Control in Healthcare Facilities’.
  • Guidance for sample collection, packaging and transportation for 2019-nCov.

The above steps are as commendable as some other prompt initiatives of the Ministry to stop Coronavirus from entering the country, such as leveraging technology for both thermal and symptomatic screening, especially at the high-risk airports.

However, according to global experts – India, along with several other countries are still ill prepared to face biological threats of a magnitude that we are now witnessing in China. On the other hand, according to February 12, 2020 publication of The World Economic Forum, there about a dozen of countries in the world who are best prepared for meeting similar health emergencies.

Similar calamity was predicted two years back by W.H.O: 

Interestingly, a similar situation was predicted by none other than Tedros Adhanom, Director General of the World Health Organization and was reported on February 15, 2018. He then said, “We have a problem. A serious one. At any moment, a life-threatening global pandemic could spring up and wipe out a significant amount of human life on this planet. The death toll would be catastrophic. One disease could see as many as 100 million dead.”

“This is not some future nightmare scenario,” he added. “This is what happened exactly 100 years ago during the Spanish flu epidemic.” Again: “A devastating epidemic could start in any country at any time and kill millions of people because we are still not prepared. The world remains vulnerable.”Explaining the reason for the same, the Director General pinpointed: “The threat of a global pandemic comes from our apathy, from our staunch refusal to act to save ourselves — a refusal that finds its heart in our indifference and our greed.”

Now, when the world is grappling with the menace of Coronavirus – may not be at the predicted global scale yet, those comments haunt us again. It flags each country’s preparedness to deal with such pandemic, as and when it strikes, unannounced.

‘Countries best prepared for health emergencies’ – and India:

The February 12, 2020 publication of The World Economic Forum, as indicated above, highlights several important realities of this subject. Let me quote below just two of these, which, I reckon, are the most profound:

  • National health security is fundamentally weak around the world, and none is fully prepared to handle such an outbreak.
  • Global biological risks are in many cases growing faster than governments and science can keep up.

Acknowledging these facts, based on the Global Health Security Index, the most prepared ones for epidemics or pandemics of all types were listed among 195 countries surveyed. Measured on a scale from 0-100, the US ranks as the “most prepared” nation (scoring 83.5). Next comes UK (77.9), the Netherlands (75.6), Australia (75.5) and Canada (75.3) featuring behind it.

Thailand and South Korea are the only countries outside of the West that rank in this category. China, the most populated country in the world – which is also at the center of the Coronavirus outbreak – is in 51st place, scoring 48.2. And, India, the second most populated country ranks 57 with a score of 46.5. The obvious question that comes up: Why India ranks so low in the Global Health Security Index, among 195 countries?

Knowing the risk – not enough, building capability is a must:

The above details will give a sense of risk exposure to pandemic or epidemic, like Coronavirus, for a country. As the experts point out, just knowing the level of risk exposures, is far from enough. Each Government has a fundamental duty to build capabilities for protecting its people from the disastrous consequences of any possible biological threat, as and when it strikes. This will call for taking quantifiable financial and other measures to fill the existing gaps in the epidemic and pandemic preparedness, as captured in many studies. 

India’s budgetary allocation for health remains frugal:

It gets reflected even in the Union Budget 2020-21for the health care sector. Although, the total allocation for the sector was about 10 percent higher from the year ago. The increase seems negligible, considering consumer price index inflation was 7.5 percent in December 2019, as analyzed by the publication Down to Earth on February 02, 2020.

The report said, over 50 percent of the increase will go into offsetting inflation and we don’t seem to be anywhere near achieving the target of allocating 2.5 percent GDP to health by 2025, as envisaged by even the current government.

More relevant to this discussion, the allocation towards schemes dealing with communicable diseases, in general, has remained unchanged, especially when ‘Indians are getting sick mostly due to infections’, according to NSSO study, as reported on November 25, 2019.

India’s ability to contain epidemic is much less than China:

In a relative yardstick, China, reportedly, has built a better health care infrastructure than India to respond to various health related needs of the country’s population, including emergency situation, such as Coronavirus. Some of the key reasons, for example, are as follows:

  • While India shows one of the lowest government-spend on public health care, as a percentage of GDP, and the lowest per capita health spend, China spends 5.6 times more. 
  • When Indians met more than 62 percent of their health expenses from their personal savings, as ‘out-of-pocket expenses’, the same is 54 per cent in China.
  • India’s ability to quarantine a large number of infected people is much limited as compared to China.
  • Health service delivery system, especially for over 70 percent of the rural population of India, lack adequate scientific and skilled manpower, alongside necessary emergency equipment to provide care to a large number of patients at the same time, if epidemics strike.
  • Around 74 percent of health care professionals happen to be concentrated in urban areas, catering to just a third of Indian population, leaving rural areas under-served, according to a KPMG report. Alongside, the country is 81 percent short of specialists at rural community health centers (CHCs).

Conclusion:

The recent Coronavirus outbreak sends a strong signal to public health authorities, across the world, about the task-cut out for them to catch the early signs of possible epidemics. Many countries, especially India, have much ground to cover to ensure the right level of preparedness in countering such unannounced biological threats.

Capacity building for prevention, early detection, taking medical countermeasures – to contain the fast spread of the deadly organisms, and effective treatment response at the earliest, is the need of the hour. India also needs to develop capabilities for rapid development of drugs and vaccines in such a situation, fighting against time. Quoting the National Institute of Virology, some recent reports indicate that India’s scientific expertise and manpower aren’t enough, just yet, to deal with similar crises.

India’s public healthcare system and its delivery mechanism are still not robust enough either to keep in quarantine or in providing effective treatment and care for a large number of patients during any epidemic situation.

Against this perspective, I reckon, India is still grossly underprepared to face any biological threat, if it strikes with all its might. In that sense, the scary Coronavirus episode may be construed as yet another wake-up call to break the perceived slumber of the Government, if not apathy, as it were.

Thus, the question that surfaces: Shouldn’t the country, at least now, deploy enough resources to protect its citizens from any possible biological threats and aggression, just as it does, to provide safety, security and well-being of the population against any other external or internal threats?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

What Pays More: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drugs’?

Posted on by
Reply

More innovative a drug is, the better is its business success rate. This was the general perception of around 92 percent pharma professionals in the past three years. Whereas the fact is: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore’. This was established by a research study of the ‘Bain & Company’ - covering multiple therapeutic areas, and was published on October 14, 2019.

It showed, when physicians prescribe a drug – its efficacy, safety and side-effect profile initially account for only 50 percent to 60 percent of the physician’s choice, with a declining trend over time. Interestingly, the other 40 percent to 50 percent of it, is based on a range of ‘physician and patient experience factors’, which pharma players need to target in innovative ways to differentiate their brands.

Many pharma companies are now experiencing the harsh reality that more innovative drugs, backed by traditional sales and marketing support are not yielding desirable financial returns. Head scratching has already started among astute pharma professionals to understand its reason for remedial measures. Thus, the number of executives who agreed with the above ‘Bain & Co’ study that: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore,’ increased to almost fourfold – from 8 percent to 28 percent in the next three years.

Thus, in this article, I shall explore whether innovation in creating a ‘unique patient experience’ during a disease treatment process, is as important, if not more than a ‘new drug innovation’. Curiously, high failure rate of most pharma players to innovate in this area, isn’t discussed as much as high failure rates in the development of innovative new drugs.

‘Customer service’ innovation – high failure rate – falling short of expectations:

Again, another article - ‘How Agile Is Powering Healthcare Innovation,’ published by ‘Bain & Company’ on June 20, 2019, brought out some interesting points related to this area. Let me quote a few of which as follows:

  • 65 percent of ‘customer-service innovation’ fall short of expectations of the target group.
  • The number of health care executives recognizing the need to respond quickly to changing customer-needs, has increased from 38 percent in the past three years to 60 percent for the next 3 years. But, most of them ‘lack the methodology, and even the language to implement it in practice.’
  • ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore.’ Thus, healthcare companies face growing pressure to innovate in providing unique ‘customer experience’.
  • The critical point to note, customer needs evolve continuously, and leading companies respond rapidly with innovative new solutions catering to changing market demand.

As the core purpose of working for ‘customer-service innovation’ is linked with creating ‘brand loyalty’, let’s have a quick recap on ‘brand loyalty’ really means for pharmaceutical products, in today’s context.

‘Brand loyalty’ for pharmaceutical products in modern times:

There are many similar definitions of ‘brand loyalty’ for a pharmaceutical product. The research article – ‘Brand Loyalty as a Strategy for the Competition with Generic Drugs: Physicians Perspective,’ published in the Journal of Developing Drugs, on August 30, 2016, defined ‘brand loyalty,’ and articulated its advantages.‘ I am paraphrasing a few of which, as below:

  • The extent of the faithfulness to a particular brand, which is a major indicator of a long-term financial performance of companies.
  • The main advantages of brand loyalty can be defined as greater sales and revenue, a substantial entry barrier to competitors, increase in a company’s ability to respond to competitive threats and lower consumer price sensitivity.
  • ‘Brand loyalty’ can protect against price competition, including branded generics, as it gives confidence to physicians on the perceived effectiveness and safety of a brand – which they usually won’t be willing to compromise with for lower prices.

This brings us to a key question. Are traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience’?

Creating ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘patient loyalty’ – a new equation:

It’s a fact today that traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ is getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience.’ This, in turn, is increasing the need of building ‘patient loyalty’, both for a pharma brand, as well as respective companies offering these brands. This is a new equation, where offering a ‘unique treatment experience’ to patients assumes a critical role more than ever before. This needs to be clearly understood by today’s pharma marketer, without any ambiguity.

In traditional pharma marketing, physicians remain, virtually, the sole focus of the branding exercise, as they appear to be the only decision makers of writing a brand prescription. Patients, in general, hardly used to have any role to play in that process. In this scenario, brand loyalty for the doctors – assuming the absence of any malpractices, is primarily driven by the following three much known factors:

  • Physicians’ unprejudiced buying-in a brand’s value offerings
  • Evaluation of opinion leaders and the doctors’ professional counterparts,
  • Quality of disease treatment outcomes.

Nevertheless, before getting into this area, let’s have a quick look at the primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand.

Traditional sales boosters of a pharma brand:

The primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand can broadly be classified as follows:

  • Multiple ways are followed to make important doctors write more prescriptions,
  • Increase the drug price, whenever an opportunity arises.

These factors still remain important, but aren’t just enough to deliver sustainable performance over a period of time. Thus, a new dimension needs to be added to it.

Add a new dimension to create brand and corporate loyalty:

With the emergence of increasingly more informed and demanding patients, there is a need to create a ‘loyal patient population’, by offering them primarily a ‘unique treatment experience’. And this is the new dimension.

For this purpose, off-the cuff approaches or strategies based on mere gut-feelings are unlikely to work. As I indicated in one of my articles, marketers need to acquire deep insights on their customers to make sales and marketing decisions more informed, than what it is today. Currently available state of the art technology can be a great enabler to facilitate this process.

This is easier said than done, because answering the question – how does a drug company create ‘brand loyalty’, is indeed a tough call. Nonetheless, many different industries have realized, since long, that offering a ‘unique customer experience’, is critical to create a pool of ‘loyal customers’.

I also had written earlier, pharma is still a late learner in accepting various new normal, in a holistic way. Accepting this reality, a sharp focus on creating ‘brand loyal doctors’ in various innovative ways, I reckon, will serve this purpose well. It’s only recently, a few companies have started working to offer such ‘experience’ to patients in the disease treatment process - end-to-end. Ironically, a large majority of them prefer to talk about it more than actually translating the same into reality.

Benefits of ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘unique customer experience’:

There are several advantages of building pharma ‘brand loyalty’ by offering ‘unique customer experience, without diluting the focus on ‘increasing prescription generation through doctors’. The benefits, I reckon, include, both new – innovative products and also branded generics. Let me give below one example of each:

  • Innovative new-products – positive word-of-mouth promotion: Satisfied patients having ‘unique end-to-end treatment experience’ with a new, innovative brand, are very likely to share it with others. This may be done by using different modes of communication, including various social-media platforms. This, in turn, may help both – add to take-off speed – post launch and create a snowballing impact on the brand adoption thereafter.
  • Branded generics – extend the product life cycle and increase growth: Patients who are loyal to a particular branded version of a generic molecule, are quite likely to refuse any change to a cheaper equivalent, even if recommended by the physician. Moreover, they will advocate for this brand to others, using different communication platforms, as indicated above. Continuation of this process will extend the life cycle of the branded-generic, with increasing growth and market share.

Conclusion:

Now, it’s time to get back to what we started with - What pays more: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drug?’ From the above perspective, it emerges that bringing innovative product to markets is, of course important. However, to ensure its sustainable financial success, other innovations, such as creating ‘a unique end-to-end patient experience’ with the brand, in all probability, would weigh more. This is an area which did not receive much attention for a long time, moving beyond the creation of increasing numbers of ‘brand loyal’ doctors, for business success.

Today, increasing consumerism in the health care space, besides pricing pressure, unfavorable perception and sinking image of the industry, is creating a strong headwind – impeding desirable growth of many pharma players. Such a challenging business scenario has prompted a few of them to innovate in designing a differentiated ‘customer experience’ – in a true sense.

Although, a large number of companies are talking about it, most are mere lip-services – a ground-swell in this area is yet to take place. The industry priority, in general, still weighs heavily in developing innovative products, and creating ‘brand loyal’ doctors, rather than cultivating ‘brand loyal patients’, alongside.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Honing Patient Outcomes With WHDs

Posted on by
Reply

On November 01, 2019, San Francisco-based Fitbit, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Google LLC for approximately US$ 2.1 billion. Many believe, though, the value of Fitbit lies in the health data that its wearables capture for its large base of users.

According to the CEO of Fitbit, currently the Fitbit brand supports more than 28 million active users around the globe who rely on these wearable products ‘to live a healthier, more active life.’ With Google’s resources and global platform, Fitbit will be able to accelerate innovation in the wearables category, scale faster, and make health even more accessible to everyone, he added.

The article – ‘The Real Reason Google Is Buying Fitbit,’ published in the Time magazine on November 04, 2019 makes some interesting points, such as the following:

  • The fast-growing healthcare tech space could be worth US$24 billion by 2020, says an estimate from Statista.
  • Although, Google has been working on cardiovascular health, diabetes and more, it hasn’t been publicly pushing healthcare as a business proposition, just yet.
  • Whereas, Google’s rivals, most notably Apple, have embraced healthcare as the next big battleground in the tech world, attracted by the promises of big profits for those who can help simplify a byzantine healthcare system.

Nonetheless, the Fitbit acquisition would facilitate Google’s entry into the Wearable Health Devices (WHDs) market in a big way, alongside other big players, such as, Apple and Samsung.

Driven by the most likely scenario of increasing usage and usefulness of WHDs, several pharma players are sniffing huge underlying commercial opportunity in this space, alongside being demonstrably patient-centric. Thus, my today’ article will deliberate whether or not WHDs will be able to offer a cutting edge to innovative drug marketers, by continually honing patient outcomes. Let me initiate this discussion by fathoming the importance of WHDs in the fast transforming digital world.

The importance of WHDs in the digital world:

‘Mary Meeker‘s 2019 Internet Trends Report’ highlights, about 51 percent of the global population is now connected to the internet, with the majority of users based in China, India and the United States. However, global internet user growth has slowed down by 6 percent and it’s becoming increasingly harder to get the rest of the world online.

In this background, especially - ‘As patients become more involved in making decisions about their health care, research shows, the result is increased satisfaction and improved health outcomes.’Consequently, the report spotlights healthcare digitization where consumer adoption of digital health tools is increasing rapidly. Some of the top areas, in terms of their speed of adoption, were listed as follows:

  • Online Health Information
  • Online Provider Reviews
  • Mobile Tracking
  • Wearables
  • Live Video Telemedicine

This gives a sense of how fast the WHDs are gaining importance for the consumers. Interestingly, Intouch Group also points out that wearables are now being used more to manage a diagnosis rather than just fitness trackers. Adding further, it pointed out – ‘Apple’s ResearchKit is an example of what CEO Tim Cook calls the “democratization of healthcare,” in that it provides health data directly to consumers so they can manage their health.’

A recent study on the scope of wearables: 

The scope of WHDs was aptly corroborated in a recent article – ‘The Rise of Wearable Technology in Health Care,’ published in the JAMA Network Open on February 01, 2019. The paper concludes, the general principle of commercially available ubiquitous wearable computers bodes well for our future ability to measure, track, and understand patient physiological data and behavior both in the hospital and at home.

The ability to capture such data, then applying machine learning to get the evolving health trends and sending alerts to patient accordingly – nurses, and physicians are instantaneously getting empowered to deliver patient outcomes. The fact that the alert can come easily via the patients’ smartphones that a significant part of the global population now carries with them, leading to further democratization of health care.

The Economist  also predicted, by 2020 – 80 percent of the adult population of the world would have a smartphone in their pocket. Therefore, this development opens up an entirely new world of real-time data acquisition, monitoring, and intervention, the paper underscored.

Giving a relevant example, it highlighted: ‘On December 6, 2018, Apple rolled out a software upgrade that turns the Apple Watch Series 4 into a personal electrocardiogram.’ The researchers further added, while WHDs’ fidelity may not yet exactly match medical-grade monitors and devices, these are “good enough” coupled with around-the-clock capabilities, real-time data capture, storage, and analytics and seem likely to provide real value.

The opportunities with WHDs:

Both from the health and business perspectives, WHDs are opening new vistas of opportunities for all stakeholders in the healthcare space, such as, patients, doctors, care providers and also pharma companies. This was enunciated in several studies, such as one, titled ‘Wearable Health Devices – Vital Sign Monitoring, Systems and Technologies,’ published by Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) on July 25, 2018.

This paper also reiterated: ‘Wearable Health Devices (WHDs) are increasingly helping people to better monitor their health status both at an activity/fitness level for self-health tracking and at a medical level providing more data to clinicians with a potential for earlier diagnosis and guidance of treatment. The technology revolution in the miniaturization of electronic devices is enabling to design more reliable and adaptable wearables, contributing to a world-wide change in the health monitoring approach.’

Thus, a big excitement is currently palpable around the technology related to WHDs. Many more opportunities are expected to unfold for continuation of the ascending trend. With the entry of big global tech giants such as, Apple and now Google, besides scores of small startups, WHDs of many types have started entering into the healthcare, carrying a promise to improving outcomes and creating a unique patient experience in the disease treatment process.

Improves outcomes, creates a unique disease treatment experience:

Echoing many other experts in this area, I also believe that WHDs have covered a lot of ground by now – expanding its usage from fitness trackers to diagnosis of disease and then monitoring the progress both during and after treatment. Current usages of WHDs are mostly for non-infectious chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, sleeping disorders, obesity and treatment compliance, besides others. The list is gradually expected to expand.

Apparently, encouraged by this trend, more pharma players are now moving into this area for significant brand value for augmentation through better patient outcomes – apace with providing a unique disease treatment experience for suffering individuals.

The scope in India:

As WHDs have a close link with both Internet and Smartphone penetration, let me try to weigh the potential of the wearables, in view of the current status of both in the country.

According to the India Internet 2019 Report by Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), the following three points are indeed noteworthy, besides others:

  • With 451 million monthly active internet users at the end of financial year 2019, India is now second only to China in this regard.
  • Urban India with 192 million users had almost the same number of users as rural India. However, in terms of percentages or penetration, given the disparity of population distribution in urban and rural India, urban India had a considerably higher penetration level.
  • In rural India, a sizable portion does not have access to the Internet, and provides a huge opportunity for growth which will contribute to an increase in the overall Internet population over the next few years, it said.

Similarly, according to the Statista report, for 2017, the number of smartphone users in India was estimated to reach 299.24 million, with the number of smartphone users worldwide forecast to exceed 2.3 billion users by that time, and was projected to be nearly 2.7 billion by 2019.

These numbers speak for themselves on the underlying opportunities of WHDs – both globally and locally. Accordingly, large pharma players have already started teaming up to deliver better patient outcomes, leveraging the value of WHDs.

Pharma players teaming up to deliver better patient outcomes with WHD:

There are several such examples. Nevertheless, to illustrate the point, let me cite one such recent instance of Abbott Laboratories announcing a deal on February 20, 2019 with Novo Nordisk to make diabetes management easier by linking technologies of the two companies. The deal will allow integration of insulin dose data for Novo Nordisk’s pre-filled and connected pens with its ‘FreeStyle’ Libre mobile app and cloud-based system.

‘Abbott’s ‘FreeStyle’ Libre Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) system will read glucose levels through a sensor that can be worn on the back of the upper arm eliminating the need for routine finger pricks. Through the FreeStyle LibreLink app users can capture and view their real-time glucose levels, their eight-hour glucose history, and how their glucose is currently changing on their smartphone.’

Yet another report highlighted, ‘Google sister-company Verily is teaming with big pharma on clinical trials.’ On May 21, 2019, the company announced strategic alliances with the pharmaceutical companies Novartis, Sanofi, Otsuka and Pfizer to help it move more deeply into the medical studies market. The goals for Verily, and its pharma partners, are to reach patients in new ways, make it easier to enroll and participate in trials, and aggregate data across a variety of sources, including the electronic medical record or health-tracking wearable devices,’ the report emphasized.

Conclusion:

It seems clear that in the rapidly transforming digital world, many drug companies are realizing the criticality of making their business operations sine qua non with the evolving trend is essential. This is not just for the organization progress, but also for long-term survival of the business. In the midst of this exciting technological environment, the potential value of WHDs to deliver better patient outcomes is being brought to the fore, primarily by the pure tech companies.

Figuring out the magnitude of the new opportunity, several pharma companies have thrown their hats in the ring, primarily in the form of collaborative deals. This ushers in a new phase in the healthcare space. Mostly because, such initiatives will have to be patient-centric for providing a unique patient experience with the drugs, in the disease treatment process. As India too, is taking rapid strides for penetration of digital technology in its ‘Health for All’ initiatives, the use of WHDs for better and cost-effective patient outcomes isn’t a pipe dream, any longer.

The evolving scenario, therefore, opens yet another door for the pharma players to grow their business, not just with drugs offering differential value, but also by making even a ‘me-too’ drug perform better, leveraging the potential of WHDs, effectively. From this perspective, continuously honing patient outcomes with WHDs, appears to be a unique tool for pharma marketers to make use of – in search of excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Posted on by
Reply

A serious, but a typical health crisis that has shaken America, is now, apparently, in search of its prey in India – a soft target to ignite a raging fire of misuse or abuse of prescription drugs of addictive in nature. That India could probably be the next victim of this menace, is now being widely discussed and reported in the international media, though not so much in India, itself.

The January 2019 communique of the National Institute of Drug Abuse spotlights: ‘Every day more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids.’ Whereas, in 2017, more than 47,000 Americans, among 1.7 million suffering people, died as a result of an Opioid overdose. Snowballing effect of Opioids addiction commenced over a couple of decades ago and includes – both prescription pain relievers and synthetic Opioids, such as fentanyl, among others.

The health menace of this humongous dimension is not only jeopardizing public health, but also impacting the social and economic welfare, work productivity, besides drug addiction related criminal behavior of an increasing number of addicts.

In this article, exploring the factors – that not just ignited, but fueled this fire, I shall try to explain why India could be a fertile ground for another opioid epidemic. The key intent is to thwart this menace without further delay, learning from the ‘Opioid crisis’ in the United States. Moving towards that direction, I begin with a brief description of the genesis of this crisis, primarily to ensure that all my readers are on the same page to feel the gravity of the situation.

The genesis of Opioid crisis:

The terms – ‘Opioid epidemic’ or ‘Opioid crisis’are generally referred to rapid increase in consumption of prescription and nonprescription Opioid drugs in America that began in the late 1990s. It is noteworthy, until the mid-1980s and early 1990s, physicians seldom prescribed opiates because of the fear of addicting patients. This was established in several studies, such as, the July-August 2016 Article, titled ‘Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?’

In the ninety’s, as the above paper indicates, some “medical experts and thought leaders led by the neurologist and pain specialist Russell Portenoy, MD, proclaimed that the risks of addiction to Opioids were minimal and that not treating pain was cruel and even amounted to medical negligence.” Incidentally, Russell Portenoy was at that time known as the “King of Pain” and was the Chairman of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at Beth Israel Hospital in New York.

The paper also articulated, “Portenoy and his acolytes wrote articles and gave lectures to physicians about the safety of narcotics. They repeatedly cited a study by Porter and Jick in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ that stated that only one percent of patients treated with narcotics became addicted.” It is a different matter, as the authors indicated, the above trial was ‘not a controlled study at all. It consisted of a short 101-word one paragraph letter to the editor.’

Understandably, the rapid spread of Opioid use in America commenced on the following years. As The author highlighted: “To this day in most American hospitals, nurses on their daily rounds, ask patients to rate their pain on a scale of one to ten and then may administer a narcotic accordingly.”

HHS corroborates the fact:

In line with the finding of the above paper, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) traces the origin of the U.S. Opioid Epidemic in the late 1990s. When, asHHS also reiterated, ‘pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to opioid pain relievers.’ Presumably, the general image of the pharma industry not being as questionable as today, ‘health care providers began to prescribe them at greater rates,’ – HHS further noted.

Thereafter, all hell broke loose, as it were.With increased prescriptions of Opioid medications, the widespread misuse of both prescription and non-prescription Opioids started taking its toll. Obviously, it happened as the prescribers were not as cautious and restrictive and concerned about prescribing Opioids because of their addictive nature, as they were before 1990s. It seems unlikely that astute medical practitioners won’t be able to fathom the devastating health impact of such highly addictive medications on the users.

America had to declare the Opioid crisis as public health emergency: 

In 2017 HHS declared Opioid crisis as a public health emergency, announcing a strategy to combat this epidemic. Separately, in October 2017, President Trump also declared the same as the ‘worst drug crisis in U.S. history’.One can sense this Presidential level urgency from the recent report of The Washington Post. It emphasized - ‘America’s largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012, as the nation’s deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control.’

The above information comes from a database maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration that tracks the path of every single pain pill sold in the United States – from manufacturers and distributors to pharmacies in every town and city. The data would provide an unprecedented look at the surge of legal pain pills that fueled the Opioid epidemic, resulting in nearly 100,000 deaths from 2006 through 2012, as the article highlighted.

In view of this, and also looking at the chronology of the genesis of this crisis, it is worth exploring the role of pharma companies in triggering this health hazard in America.

The role of pharma companies in the crisis: 

That there is, apparently, a role of some big pharma players in the Opioid crisis was widely reported by the international media. One such article titled, ‘Big Pharma Is Starting to Pay for the Opioid Crisis. Make Those Payments Count,’ was publishesby The New York Times, on August 28, 2019.

It said: ‘As innumerable court documents and investigations have shown, Opioid makers, including Purdue and Johnson & Johnson, routinely and knowingly misled the public about their products. They played down the risks of addiction, insisting that their drugs were safe and, if anything, underutilized. And they combated growing concerns with aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns.’

The September 01, 2019 article titled – ‘America’s Opioid catastrophe has lessons for us all, about greed and racial division’, published in The Guardian went a step forward. Explaining the reason for the situation to attain a ‘crisis’ stage, it said, ‘big pharma saw huge profits in medicalizing the social stress of the white working class.’ Thus, the question that comes up, is there any strong and credible evidence to associate Opioid crisis with pharma marketing?

Association of Opioid crisis with pharma marketing:

Several reports point towards a possible pharma-doctor nexus for the Opioid crisis. One such evidence is provided by the same  July-August 2016 Article, as quoted above. The paper said:‘Recently and belatedly, Portenoy has backtracked and admitted he was wrong about the addictive properties of Opioids.’ He was quoted in the article saying: “I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and ‘90s about addiction that weren’t true.”

Another original investigation report in this regard, titled ‘‘Association of Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioid Products With Mortality From Opioid-Related Overdoses’, was published in JAMAon January 18, 2019. The paper concluded:‘In this study, across US counties, marketing of Opioid products to physicians was associated with increased Opioid prescribing and, subsequently, with elevated mortality from overdoses. Amid a national Opioid overdose crisis, reexamining the influence of the pharmaceutical industry may be warranted.’

The article also indicated: ‘Recent data suggest that when physicians receive Opioid marketing, they subsequently prescribe more Opioids.’ The researchers pointed out:‘Amid a worsening Opioid crisis, our results suggest that industry marketing to physicians may run counter to current efforts to curb excessive Opioid prescribing.’

Again, the same September 01, 2019 article, published in The Guardian, also stresses– ‘The relationship between big pharma and US doctors can only be described as corrupt.’ Quoting the official figures, it highlighted: ‘The total paid to doctors and hospitals by drug companies was more than $9bn. Unsurprisingly, the greater the payments, the more willing doctors were to prescribe Opioids.’

The India’s tryst with Opioid drugs:

As many would know, India has remained for a long time one of the largest Opioid medicine producers in the world. However, most of the country’s population had a restricted access to Opioid pain relief drugs.

This was because, the International Narcotics Control Board, established in 1968, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 ‘codified the bureaucratic thicket for any doctor who wanted to prescribe opioid painkillers. Physicians feared fines, jail sentences and losing their medical license if they skirted regulations.’

The amendment came in 2014:

According to reports, the need for pain relief being “an important obligation of the government,” the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, was amended in 2014, creating a class of medicines called the “essential narcotic drugs.” The list of which includes, morphine, fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone, codeine and hydrocodone. Alongside, the conditions for bail in drug offenses will be relaxed and the mandatory death penalty for those previously convicted of certain offenses will be revoked.This is expected to create a better balance between narcotic drug control and the availability of Opioid drugs, for beneficial use of patients.

The flip side – a looming threat?

So far so good. Nevertheless, another article – ‘How big pharma is targeting India’s booming Opioid market,’ appeared in The Guardian on August 27, 2019, shows the flip side of this development. It says, as India loosens its stringent narcotics laws, ‘American pharmaceutical companies – architects of the Opioid crisis in the United States and avid hunters of new markets – stand at the ready to fuel that demand.’

Many are truly concerned about it, especially in a country like India, where any medicine can be procured over the counter, hoodwinking robust drug laws. Thus, as the above article adds, ‘a looming deluge of addictive painkillers terrifies some Indian medical professionals, who are keenly aware that despite government regulations most drugs are available for petty cash at local chemist shops.’

Providers of pain management are increasing, so also self-medication:

Today, ‘pain management’ as a specialty treatment, can be seen in many hospitals of the country. In tandem – apparently, ‘at the insistence of the professional societies that accredit hospitals in India, nurses and doctors are now encouraged to assess pain as a “fifth vital sign“, along with pulse, temperature, breathing and blood pressure.’ Besides, as The Guardian article of August 27, 2019 also noted, ‘General practitioners have started prescribing these drugs.’

Yet another important point to note, according to studies, one of the most common reasons for self-medication is for pain – 18.34 percent, where self-medication is done with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 49.4 percent of cases. Keeping pace with this trend, most generic pharma companies are having pain management product in their brand portfolio, unlike a couple of decades ago.

Early signs of drug companies’ special marketing activities:

There are many examples. But I shall quote The Guardian article again to drive home this point. The paper talks about hints of ‘American pharma’s fingerprints’ in a glass cabinet in the waiting room of a famous clinic in Delhi. Some of these include ‘awards from Johnson & Johnson honoring the doctor for symposia on pain management; a plaque for “his valuable contribution as a speaker” about tapentadol, an Opioid marketed by Johnson & Johnson in 2009. The dispensing counter does a brisk business in Ultracet, branded tramadol tablets made by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary.’

Alongside, another interesting point is peeps in – the drugs, which are now commonly prescribed for chronic pain were first approved for use by cancer patients. ‘One of the first formulations of fentanyl, for example, was a lollipop because chemotherapy left cancer patients too nauseated to eat. In India, pain physicians now prescribe fentanyl patches to patients with chronic muscular pain.’

Every year, more of such drugs are coming to market. Many chemists, hospitals and medical shops are also acquiring requisite licenses for keeping these drugs. Curiously, Opioids are available in not just oral, but injectable, patches and syrups – the article noted.

Conclusion:

There are many striking similarities between the developments that preceded the American Opioid crisis and the emerging scenario of the same in India. One such is, its onset in America was in the late 1990s, with the regulatory relaxation in introducing Opioid drugs. However, the first announcement of the full-blown crisis on the same, took a couple of decades to come.

In India, the regulatory relaxation for some Opioid drugs came in 2014, and now its 2019. Thus, it’s possibly too early to even track, in which direction it is moving. However, given the prevailing overall healthcare scenario in India, the concern remains palpable. The decision makers, hopefully, would consider putting in place effective checks and balances, taking a leaf from the American Opioid epidemic. The measures should include, among others, effective implementation of legal and regulatory provisions; making health care delivery systems robust and transparent; protecting vulnerable patients from rampant and irresponsible self-medication, besides promptly addressing general concerns with pharma marketing practices.

The whole process should be aimed at benefitting the deserving patients, suffering from excruciating pain, while minimizing Opioid drug misuse or abuse. There should not be any repetition of human sufferings on this score, like what people are now witnessing in America. Effective action from all concerned – right from now, will decide whether or not Opioid crisis is a looming threat that India can successfully neutralize.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Is India in The Eye of The AMR Storm?

Posted on by
Reply

‘With 700,000 people losing battle to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) per year and another 10 million projected to die from it by 2050, AMR alone is killing more people than cancer and road traffic accidents combined together.’ This was highlighted in the Review Article, ‘Antimicrobial resistance in the environment: The Indian scenario,’ published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), on June 03, 2019.

The article further noted, ‘AMR engendered from the environment has largely remained neglected so far,’ which has a snowballing effect. Illustrating the enormity of its impact, the researchers recorded: ‘Economic projections suggest that by 2050, AMR would decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 2-3.5 percent with a fall in livestock by 3-8 percent, costing USD100 trillion to the world.’

Besides International media, fearsome consequences of AMR are also being highlighted by the Indian media from time to time. For example, on November 21, 2018, a leading national business daily carried an apt headline: ‘India in the firing line of antimicrobial resistance.’ More intensive coverage of such nature for this public menace, would hopefully appeal to the conscience of all those who can meaningfully address this situation, especially the government.

Against this backdrop, I shall explore in this article, whether India is really in the eye of this AMR storm, which is posing an unprecedented threat to many lives, perhaps more in India. 

India is being called the AMR capital of the world: 

Analyzing the emerging research data in this area, India was referred to as ‘the AMR capital of the world,’ in the 2017 Review Article, title ‘Antimicrobial resistance: the next BIG pandemic.’ Curiously, besides umpteen number of published papers documenting this scary development, very few enlightened individuals would dare to push an argument to the contrary. Whereas, besides framing a policy document on AMR,nothing much is changing in India on this score. This is happening, even when it is evidenced that a gamut of the most powerful antibiotics, are not working against many deadly bacteria. Added to it, India still doesn’t have a public database that provides death due to AMR.

Are adequate resources being deployed to fight the menace:

Today one would witness with pride that India’s ‘Chandrayaan 2’ lunar mission is moving towards the Moon’s south polar region, where no country has ever gone before. At the same time, despite AMR threat, India’s budgetary allocation for health in 2018-2019, reportedly, shows a 2.1 percent decrease of the total Union Budget from the 2.4 percent in 2017-2018.

It is interesting to note that India: ‘Despite being the world’s sixth largest economy, public health spending has languished at under 1.5 percent of GDP, one of the lowest rates in the world. For comparison, the United Kingdom shelled out 9.6 percent of its GDP in 2017 on health. The United States’ health expenditure is 18 percent of GDP.’

‘Ayushman Bharat’ and health care infrastructure:

Recently lunched public health program - Ayushman Bharat, although is not a Universal Health Care (UHC) program, it has targeted to cover ‘less than half the population and excluding 700 million people’. While giving a thumbs-up to this initiative, if one looks at the overall health infrastructure in India to make it possible as intended, it may not encourage many.

To illustrate this point, let me quote only the salient points, as captured in a 2018 study, published in the British Medical Journal, as follows:

  • The total size of health workforce estimated from the National Sample Survey (NSS) data was 3.8 million as of January 2016, which is about 1.2 million less than the total number of health professionals registered with different councils and associations.
  • The density of doctors and nurses and midwives per 10,000 population is 20.6 according to the NSS and 26.7 based on the registry data.
  • Health workforce density in rural India and states in eastern India is lower than the WHO minimum threshold of 22.8 per 10,000 population.
  • More than 80 percent of doctors and 70 percent of nurses and midwives are employed in the private sector.
  • Approximately 25 percent of the current working health professionals do not have the required qualifications as laid down by professional councils, while 20 percent of adequately qualified doctors are not in the current workforce.

The intent to deliver health care as announced by various governments from time to time is good. But, the available health infrastructure to deliver these meaningfully are grossly inadequate, creating a huge apprehension among many. This is not just because of the grossly inadequate number of hospitals, doctors, nurses and paramedics, but also their even uneven spread in the country. The cumulative impact of these, fueled by corruption, ‘missing doctors, ill-equipped health professionals, and paucity of required funds’ continue creating a humongous problem for the public, at large, to get affordable health care.

At the same time, there is ‘a serious lack of new antibiotics under development to combat the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance.’ Imagine, a situation when India gets caught in the eye of the AMR storm and imagine the consequences of that, as you deem appropriate.

Lack of new antibiotics under development to combat AMR:

The World Health Organization (WHO) report - ‘Antibacterial agents in clinical development – an analysis of the antibacterial clinical development pipeline, including tuberculosis’, launched on September 20, 2017 shows ‘a serious lack of new antibiotics under development to combat the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance.’

It further reported: ‘Most of the drugs currently in the clinical pipeline are modifications of existing classes of antibiotics and are only short-term solutions.’ The report also found, very few potential treatment options for those antibiotic-resistant infections identified by WHO as posing the greatest threat to health, including drug-resistant tuberculosis which kills around 250 000 people each year.

Thus, the point to ponder simultaneously is, whether there is any decline in global investments for antibiotic research, both by the drug industry and the public funders.

Declining investment on new antibiotic R&D: 

As stated in the May 2016 paper, titled ‘Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally. As the report indicates: ‘The UK Prime Minister commissioned the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance to address the growing global problem of drug-resistant infections. It is chaired by Jim O’Neill and supported by the Wellcome Trust and UK Government, but operates and speaks with full independence from both.’

The report acknowledges that new antibiotic research and development has been suffering from decades of under-investment by companies and governments. The reason being, antibiotic discovery and development are no longer an attractive proposition for commercial drug developers, for a key fundamental reason:

And this is, lack of a dependable, commercially-attractive market for antibiotics that meet large unmet medical needs. As a result, the volume of sales of a such new antibiotics will be low, and restricted only to multi-drug resistant bacteria. Otherwise, older and cheaper antibiotics will still work against most other infections. In that scenario, patented new antibiotics will have to compete with generics, keeping the price low. This combination of price pressure and low volumes makes antibiotics unattractive as a commercial proposition for many drug developers.

Which is why, as the report says: ‘Less than 5 percent of venture capital investment in pharmaceutical R&D between 2003 and 2013 was for antimicrobial development.’ Against total venture capital investment of USD 38 billion in pharmaceutical R&D, antimicrobial venture capital investment was mere USD 1.8 billion, during the same period. Coming back to India specific concerns, let’s have a look at the sociocultural issues in the country, associated with AMR.

Sociocultural issues are fueling the fire:

Understandably, the AMR problem remains intricately intertwined with a number of sociocultural issues of India. It has been established in several studies that social level, socioeconomic and socio-cultural status can play a significant role in the health status of people. Most research done on this subject indicates that higher level of socioeconomic classes reflects at a higher level of health and longevity. Much of this comes from the fact that there is a higher level of education and health care that is available for ‘this class level’.

Sociocultural issues in India also includes, poor hygienic practices, inadequate clean water and good sanitation facilities across the country, besides improper implementation and lack of good governance of health policies, rules and regulations. These factors are also aggravating the AMR problems in the country, as stated in the article, titled ‘‘Public Health Challenges in India,’ published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine, in its April-June 2016 issue. Which is why, just addressing the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and restricting its wide consumption, aren’t not enough, any longer.

Is India in the eye of the AMR storm?

‘Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as a major threat to public health estimated to cause 10 million deaths annually by 2050. India carries one of the largest burdens of drug-resistant pathogens worldwide.’ This was highlighted in the research paper, titled ‘Antimicrobial resistance: Progress in the decade since the emergence of New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase in India’, published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine, on March 12, 2019.

The article noted, ‘AMR has been identified as a global health threat with serious health, political, and economic implications.’ The paper concluded with a serious note, which is worth taking note of. It found, the full throttle efforts to tackle the AMR challenge in India still requires significant efforts from all stakeholders. It underscored, ‘Despite the adoption of a national policy and significant activities already underway, progress is limited by a lack of clear implementation strategy and research gaps.’ 

Suggested areas of focus in India:

As ‘the Sword of Damocles’, in the form of AMR, hangs over the head of Indian population, there are certain important measures that the country can definitely take to contain AMR, whereas some other critical ones will be challenging to roll out, immediately.

It is unlikely, during this period India will have the requisite wherewithal to focus on discovery and development of new antibiotics to tackle AMR. Similarly, only framing rules and regulations for doctors, patients, dispensing chemists or hospitals to prevent antibiotic misuse, which are not persuasively yet strongly implemented, won’t also yield desired results. Nevertheless, efforts must continue for their effective compliance.

That said, what the country can seriously focus on, sans much constraints, is on taking collective measures in resolving some of the crucial but intimately associated sociocultural issues, with all sincerity and precision. A few of these important areas include, intense public awareness campaigns on the growing threat to life due to AMR, clubbing the benefits of availing good sanitation facilities, hygienic lifestyle and everyday practices.

Moreover, misuse of antibiotics in poultry, animal farming and agriculture should be curbed. Alongside, mass vaccination program for prevention of bacterial and viral infections, should be made available all over the country. Monitoring of the incidence of death due to AMR, on an ongoing basis, is another practice should also feature in the must-do list, providing access to this database to public. Responding meaningfully to International coalition for country-specific action, is also very important. To attain this goal a healthy socioeconomic environment needs to be encouraged, with corruption free efficient governance.

Conclusion:

That India is in the eye of the AMR storm, can’t be wished away any longer. Thus, the fight against AMR will need to be a well-orchestrated one, engaging all stakeholders as partners. The private sector should also actively participate in the AMR awareness programs under public–private partnership (PPP) or through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

The whole process should be backed by a creative strategy, having buying-in from all concerned, but spearheaded by the government. That’s the minimum that, I reckon, should happen when the country is in the eye of the impending AMR storm.

By: Tapan J. Ray    

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

The Challenge of Holistic Value Creation With Pharma M&A

Posted on by
Reply

Two mega deals, right at the dawn of 2019 gave a flying start to Merger & Acquisition (M&A) activities, in search of inorganic growth, by some large pharma companies. The two biggest ones are Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) USD 74 billion buyout of Celgene, and AbbVie’s USD 63 billion purchase of Allergan, as announced on January 03, 2019 and June 25, 2019, respectively. However, overall in the second quarter of 2019, there were, reportedly, only 22 deals – ‘the smallest quarterly deal count for at least a decade.’

As a strategic option for greater value creation to drive growth, M&A is being actively considered over a long period of time. The key focus of such value creation for the company remains primarily on enriching the pipeline of New Chemical or Molecular Entities (NCE/NME) for revenue synergy, besides cost synergy. This is understandable. But, for various reasons, alongside, a key question also comes up for debate – is the core purpose of such value creation to drive companies’ growth, primarily with more number new drugs, sustainable? The query assumes greater relevance in the evolving new paradigm. This is because, a basic shift is taking place in the core organizational purpose of value creation.

Thus, it appears, the nature of value creation through M&A would also matter as much. Can it still remain a drug company’s financial health centric, any longer? Should the M&A initiatives also not take under their wings, the value-offerings expected by patients from a drug company – beyond innovative pills? Would a holistic value creation through M&A would now be the name of the game? If so, how?  The discussion of my today’s article will revolve around these questions. Let me initiate the deliberation by recapitulating the key motivation behind M&A initiatives of the drug industry.

A key motivation behind the M&A initiatives in the drug industry:

While recapitulating one of the key motivations behind pharma M&As, let me refer to some interesting and recent studies, such as, the 2019 paper of McKinsey titled, ‘What’s behind the pharmaceutical sector’s M&A push.’ It also acknowledges, the use of M&A to bolster drug innovation is unlikely to change any time soon.

That many drug companies actively pursue the M&A option as a game changer for inorganic growth, is vindicated by the recent big deals, as quoted above. Since early 2000 and before, the companies that made the biggest deals to create new value synergies with, have been paying heavy deal premium to enrich their new product pipelines. Quite often it includes several new and emerging classes of drugs, as acquisition targets.

This also gets corroborated in the Press Release of the 2019 BMS deal, which says: ‘The transaction will create a leading focused specialty biopharma company well positioned to address the needs of patients with cancer, inflammatory and immunologic disease and cardiovascular disease through high-value innovative medicines and leading scientific capabilities.’

Lesser yield of traditional pharma M&A than the broader market:

This was emphasized in the June 06, 2019 article, published in The Washington Post, titled ‘Big Pharma Has to Bet Big on M&A. Investors Don’t.’ The analysis found, the returns from the big pharma deals ‘don’t look as good compared to the broader market’, although for very patient investors many of these have resulted in longer-term gains. To illustrate this point, the paper pointed out: ‘Of the eight biopharma deals worth more than USD 40 billion that closed in the last 20 years, only one delivered better returns than the S&P 500 five years after it closed.’

Naming Merck & Co..’s USD 47 billion acquisition of Schering-Plough Corp. in 2009, the researcher justified: ‘That deal is arguably something of an accidental winner. Long-term success didn’t come from any of the products that Merck targeted in the merger; instead, an afterthought of an antibody that was initially set to be sold off became Keytruda, a cancer drug that’s projected to generate USD 15 billion in sales in 2021.’

Innovative product launches no longer a holistic value-creation for patients: 

Thus, unlike yesteryears, enriching new and innovative product pipeline through M&A won’t serve the key purpose of value-creation for patients to treat deadly diseases in a holistic way. The primary reason for the same was articulated in the Deloitte Paper titled, ‘Disruptive M&A: Are you ready to define your future?’ The article emphasized: ‘The confluence of technological change, shifting customer preferences, and convergence across sectors is redesigning how products and services are developed, delivered, and consumed.’

Thus, mere acquisitions of innovative product portfolios, intended to provide better treatment choices for patients, may not meet the holistic needs of consumers’ while going through the disease treatment process. In depth understanding of such preferences with all associated nuances, is absolutely essential in today’s complex business scenario. Which is why, it calls for avant-garde type or ‘disruptive M&As’, that can help alter the business growth trajectories, making the disrupted company disrupt the competitive space, being game changers of the industry.

Calls for avant-garde type or disruptive pharma M&As:

Today, it’s crucial for any drug company to create a unique treatment experience for patients. This is emerging as a pivotal factor for the success of a brand.

Even most innovative products will need to be supported by disruptive back-office technology for market success. Thus, acquisition of disruptive technology to effectively augment the brand value delivery process is equally important, in tandem with enrichment of new product pipeline. This is expected to emerge as a critical driver in pharma M&A. Such takeovers, I reckon, may be termed as avant-garde type or disruptive M&As – for holistic value creation for patients.

‘Disruptive M&A’ creates a much broader range of possibilities and targets:

For a holistic value creation through disruptive M&A focus for target selection needs to be significantly different from the standard models of M&As – and not just about the quality of NCE and NME pipeline. The above paper also highlighted: ‘Disruptive M&A opportunities requires evaluating and assessing a much broader range of possibilities and targets than traditional M&A.’

With the right kind of target selection after a thorough analysis of the business model, disruptive M&A may help the acquiring drug companies to go beyond achieving revenue and cost synergies. It can also provide cutting-edge business capabilities, alongside enriching and expanding the talent pool, key business processes, and, of course, the state-of-the-art technology –inorganically.

Initiatives and focus of drug companies of this genre, are expected to be more in the coming years, primarily driven by a new type of value creation to offer a unique disease treatment experience for patients with their respective brands.

A new type of value creation for patients in healthcare space:

It has already started happening in the recent years. For example, Amazon, on January 30, 2018 , announced, it is collaborating with Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, and the bank JP Morgan Chase to create an independent, nonprofit health care company ‘with the goal of increasing user satisfaction and reducing costs.’ They also announced the organizational focus on two of the following areas, which are interesting and unconventional:

  • Technology solutions that will provide U.S. employees and their families simplified, high-quality and transparent healthcare at a reasonable cost.
  • Draw on their combined capabilities and resources to take a fresh approach.

As the New York Time (NYT) reported: ‘The alliance was a sign of just how frustrated American businesses are with the state of the nation’s health care system and the rapidly spiraling cost of medical treatment.’ The report further added: ‘It also caused further turmoil in an industry reeling from attempts by new players to attack a notoriously inefficient, intractable web of doctors, hospitals, insurers and pharmaceutical companies.’

Although, this has happened in the United States, it sends a strong signal to the state of things to come sooner than expected in the health care space, dominated, so far, by pure pharma and biotech players, across the world.  New types of value creation for patients of similar nature, especially by tech greenhorns in the pharma space, can be wished away at one’s own peril.

Consumer-focused digital companies redefining healthcare value creation:

‘2019 EY M&A Firepower’ report also highlights the innovative efforts of consumer-focused, digital companies to carve out a solid niche for themselves in the pharma dominated health care space. With ‘effective deployment of their ‘connected devices, data analytics skills and deep consumer relationships, these new entrants are positioned to have access to important real-world data that could, in part or in full, determine future product utilization and payment,’ as the report emphasized.

Such fast-evolving development also prompt pharma players to act fast. And the most practical way of doing so, with a high possibility of success, is through disruptive M&A. Ongoing entry of consumer-focused, digital companies in health care increase the urgency for life sciences companies to act, now.

Conclusion:

Thus far, pharma and biotech companies have been engaged in a massive wealth creation for themselves by using their biological and chemical know-how for novel drugs and devices. This ballgame has to change now, ‘as the lines between health and technology continue to blur’, according to the EY Firepower report.

Capabilities of big data and analytics will increasingly be more essential for success, regardless of having a rich pipeline of NCEs and NMEs, even with the potential to achieve blockbuster status in the market. Thus, the ballgame has to change.

Against this backdrop, the key challenge of pharma players for a brighter tomorrow would undoubtedly be ‘holistic value creation.’ Its core purpose should be to deliver a unique patient experience, encompassing the entire disease treatment process – going beyond innovative drugs. One of the quickest routes to create this virtuous cycle, I reckon, is through ‘disruptive M&As – moving away from the traditional model for the same.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Deadly Climate Change Impact On Human Health: How Prepared Is India?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not uncommon to find many people, including heads of countries, expressing their serious apprehensions in public, about the scary impact of climate change. Just the last year, on November 26, 2018, BBC News captured one of such incidences with the astonishing headline: “Trump on climate change report: I don’t believe it.” The findings of this report have underscored, ‘unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy.’

Similarly, a few years ago, on September 05, 2014,CNN News 18 quoted Prime Minister Narendra Modi as saying: “Climate has not changed. We have changed. Our habits have changed,’ while answering to a question on climate change. Regardless of the outcome of any split-hair analysis of the rationale behind such statements from the world leaders, such public discourse could trivialize the possible catastrophic impact of climate change on the planet earth.

Be that as it may, that climate change is taking place, carrying all its ill-effects, is real now, without any ambiguity. There is also widespread consensus among the members of the United Nations that ‘the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented during post hunter-gatherer human existence.’

It is worth noting that way back in 2001, the ‘Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, further recorded: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is likely to be attributable to human activities”, most importantly the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.

Several ‘International Agreements’, including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change - all supported by hard scientific data, have called for immediate, quantifiable measures in each country to address the ‘wide-ranging environmental threats, such as ozone depletion and long-range transboundary air pollution.’ Against this backdrop, in this article, I shall focus on the dreadful effect of climate change in the proliferation of a wide-variety of ailments, especially infectious diseases, within a few decades. While doing so, let me first have a quick recap on what is ‘Climate Change’, in a simple language.

Climate Change – a quick recap:

According to the United Nations, ‘Climate Change is the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. Without drastic action today, adapting to these impacts in the future will be more difficult and costly.’

It’s important to note, although, the planet Earth’s climate is constantly changing over geological time, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events. Scientists are concerned that the natural fluctuation or variance, is being overtaken by a rapid human-induced warming, as they emit more greenhouse gases. As these gases get trapped in the atmosphere, more heat is retained that has serious implications for the stability of the planet’s climate, even impacting human health with grave consequences. The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has also warned that the health of millions could be threatened by increases in malaria, waterborne disease and malnutrition.

Its impact human health:

The direct and indirect impact of climate change on human health is profound. Before I go into the specifics, let me indicate some of the direct ones, as captured by the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHanGE), University of Washington. This is sans any charts and maps, unlike the usual practice:

  • Increasing temperatures are causing poor air quality that can affect the heart and worsen cardiovascular disease.
  • Increasing exposure to pollen, molds, and air pollution, all of which can worsen allergies and other lung diseases, such as asthma.
  • Changes in the geographic range of disease-carrying insects, such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas and other similar ones, which can fast spread many tropical ailments, such as dengue fever and malaria to humans.
  • Increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather and climate events can cause, besides many physical illnesses, several kinds of mental illnesses – increasing both morbidity and mortality.
  • Frequent flooding events and sea level rise can contaminate water with harmful pathogens and chemicals, potentially causing food-borne and waterborne illnesses.
  • Changing weather patterns affect the quality and quantity of nutritious foods with increasing incidence of under-nutrition and micronutrient deficiencies.
  • Additional stress placed on hospital and public health systems, could limit people’s ability to obtain adequate health care during extreme weather events and disease outbreaks.

Most specific and the deadly one:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) publication - ‘Climate change and human health – Risks and Responses,’ clearly flagged that ‘Changes in infectious disease transmission patterns are a likely major consequence of climate change.’

Citing a pertinent analogy to explain the reason, it said: “Humans have known that climatic conditions affect epidemic diseases from long before the role of infectious agents was discovered, late in the nineteenth century. Roman aristocrats retreated to hill resorts each summer to avoid malaria. South Asians learnt early that, in high summer, strongly curried foods were less likely to cause diarrhea.”

Would pharma players convert these problems into opportunities?

Curiously, some pharmaceutical investors are researching to fathom potential business opportunities lying underneath the above problem, especially for vaccines and newer antimicrobials. It’s probably a blessing in disguise not just for the drug companies, but also for the general public, considering the following two issues, prevailing in the current scenario:

  • According to W.H.O, Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is an increasingly serious threat to global public health. It threatens the effective prevention and treatment of an ever-increasing range of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi, causing the success of even major surgery and cancer chemotherapy seriously compromised.
  • ‘Pharmaceutical companies are backing away from a growing threat that could kill 10 million people a year by 2050’, reported a July 19, 2018 article. This is because, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Profitable Enough for Big Pharma to Make More,’ wrote another article, published in Bloomberg Businessweek, on May 3, 2019.

Interestingly, a recent report analyzed and evaluated how this can be done, and which companies will be benefitted most in that process. 

“Climate change to fetch a big business opportunity for pharma”:

As reported on July 25, 2019, Morgan Stanley told investors that climate change will cause an increased prevalence and rapid spread of infectious diseases that may be a boon for some drug companies with big vaccine portfolios. It also highlighted, between 383 million and 725 million more people may be exposed to Zika, dengue and other diseases by 2050, depending on the pace and severity of global warming.

The analysts estimated, especially 7 pharma companies will be critical to fighting infectious diseases brought on by climate change. According to the research note of thebank, ‘the USD 500 billion infectious disease market could see demand for an added USD 125 billion in new vaccines, or as much as USD 200 billion assuming premium pricing for more complex new treatments.’

The top possible gainers:

Identifying the top possible gainers, Morgan Stanley apprised, vaccine development being more difficult and expensive, companies that are already in that business will have an upper hand.

Hence, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline are expected at the top, given their existing pipelines and manufacturing capacity. Takeda and Merck both have vaccines in the works for dengue fever, one of the diseases that climate change is likely to exacerbate. Janssen and Pfizer are both active in the vaccines market, but would need to establish new research programs to take on tropical diseases. ‘Moderna’ is also in a good position because it has demonstrated a potential pipeline for drugs combating the Zika virus., as Morgan Stanley further elaborated.

Nevertheless, Morgan Stanley isn’t the only bank looking at investment opportunities from climate change, on July 24, 2019, Goldman Sachs also, reportedly, said it was hiring a sustainable-finance group that is looking into issues related to sustainability. Thus, on the positive side, climate change could fetch a big business opportunity for many pharma players, across the world.

600 million people at risk for climate change in India:

On June 24, 2019, a reputed national business news daily of India reported, “600 million people at risk: Climate change may soon turn critical in India.” Against this threat, the current public health care infrastructure in the country, continues to remain fragile, as stated in India’s National Health Profile, 13th Issue.

It also states, the cost of treatment has been on the rise in India and it has led to inequity in access to health care services. Intriguingly, the country spends around 1.02 percent of its GDP towards public health, which has remained static to declining over a long period of time. Although, health insurance is a growing segment, it hasn’t taken off fully. Several measures are needed to improve and expand insurance coverage.

Further, according to the report by the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP) in the US, India is facing shortage of 600,000 doctors and 2 million nurses. This report was widely quoted by the Indian media, on April 14, 2019.

These facts give a perspective on what is India’s level of preparedness to address the critical health issues related to climate change, especially the havoc that the dreaded infectious diseases can cause to so many.

Conclusion:

Astute health policy makers, including a large section of the top political echelon of the country are, apparently, aware of various ill effects of climate change. They also seem to be cognizant that these are likely to accelerate the worsening health problems of the population, including infectious diseases, asthma and other respiratory diseases.

Assuming, new and modern drugs will keep coming to help treat these ailments, do we have a functioning and efficient public health infrastructure to grapple with such issues. What about high out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare for a large section of the population, regardless of Ayushman Bharat?

As the (W.H.O) publication - ‘Climate change and human health – Risks and Responses’ recommended, ‘early planning for health is essential to reduce, hopefully avoid, near future and long-term health impacts of global climate change. The optimal solution, however, is in the hands of governments, society and every individual—a commitment to a change in values, to enable a full transition to sustainable development.’

That said, as India is also a signatory to the latest Paris Agreement on Climate Change, can we assume, India will walk the talk to significantly contain its deadly impact on human health? How is India preparing itself to meet this great challenge of Probably it is anybody’s guess, at least, as on date?

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.